For the past 24 years, both the U.S. and Israel have been wedded to the creation of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza, an idea that has been endorsed officially by the Clinton, George W. Bush, and Obama administrations. Giora Eiland argues that, given the evident failure of this plan, the time is ripe for Israel, in concert with the incoming American presidential administration, to give serious consideration to the alternatives:

[The two-state solution] is based on four assumptions. One, the solution to the conflict should be geographically restricted to the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea. Two, the solution requires the establishment of a Palestinian state with full sovereignty. Three, the border between Israel and Palestine should be based on the pre-1967 lines. Four, the West Bank and Gaza must constitute a single diplomatic entity.

These four assumptions create very limited room for negotiations. . . . If we free ourselves from them and try to look into the entire range of possible solutions, we will find that some of the other solutions have outstanding advantages over the only solution currently on the table. . . .

Among the other solutions, we can talk about a “regional solution” with land swaps between four players—Egypt, Jordan, Israel and Palestine—or about the creation of a federation between Jordan and the West Bank, or about a functional, not necessarily territorial, division between Israel and the Palestinians. And yes, even the plan advanced by Naftali Bennett, leader of the Jewish Home party, to annex Area C [of the West Bank, where most of the Jewish settlements are concentrated] and establish Palestinian autonomy in the remainder of the territory.

With the IDF engaged in ground maneuvers in both northern and southern Gaza, and a plan about to go into effect next week that would separate more than 100,000 civilians from Hamas’s control, an end to the war may at last be in sight. Yet there seems to be no agreement within Israel, or without, about what should become of the territory. Efraim Inbar assesses the various proposals, from Donald Trump’s plan to remove the population entirely, to the Israeli far-right’s desire to settle the Strip with Jews, to the internationally supported proposal to place Gaza under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA)—and exposes the fatal flaws of each. He therefore tries to reframe the problem:

[M]any Arab states have failed to establish a monopoly on the use of force within their borders. Syria, Lebanon, Iraq, Yemen, Libya, and Sudan all suffer from civil wars or armed militias that do not obey the central government.

Perhaps Israel needs to get used to the idea that in the absence of an entity willing to take Gaza under its wing, chaos will prevail there. This is less terrible than people may think. Chaos would allow Israel to establish buffer zones along the Gaza border without interference. Any entity controlling Gaza would oppose such measures and would resist necessary Israeli measures to reduce terrorism. Chaos may also encourage emigration.

Israel is doomed to live with bad neighbors for the foreseeable future. There is no way to ensure zero terrorism. Israel should avoid adopting a policy of containment and should constantly “mow the grass” to minimize the chances of a major threat emerging across the border. Periodic conflicts may be necessary. If the Jews want a state in their homeland, they need to internalize that Israel will have to live by the sword for many more years.